The US leads the world in dollar value of manufacturing, but not necessarily in manufacturing volume. Our manufacturing tends to be higher ticket items (airplanes, mining equipment, medical equipment, software, transportation vehicles, military equipment). China has a higher per unit output than the US but makes cheap shit. Also keep in mind that food production is considered manufacturing, although most wouldn't think of a wheat farmer as a manufacturer.

“The United States remains by far the world’s leading manufacturer by value of goods produced. It hit a record $1.6 trillion in 2007 – nearly double the $811 billion of 1987. For every $1 of value produced in China factories, the United States generates $2.50.”

fisticuffs wrote:Crockett won't be satisfied until all American manufacturing dies.

Also, why don't I ever hear Dems or Greens argue that GM buried itself by selling-out to the giant SUV crowd? They chose to make gas-guzzlers that helped take us to war and ruin the environment.

Shouldn't they pay for their selfish decisions? Wouldn't everyone have been better off if they had invested in green cars rather than SUVs all those years?

There seems to be some weird logic at play here.

GM "sold out to the giant SUV crowd" because that's what people wanted to buy. Isn't selling people what they want a free market principle? They'd have gone into green cars if people had wanted them. It was the buying public that chose gas guzzlers, not the manufacturers. Put the blame where it belongs.

It's just too easy to call someone short-sighted when one has the benefit of hindsight.

The automobile horizon was much different in the late 90's. Just a few highlights (courtesy of "Natural Capitalism") - Daimler-Benz (1997) committed $350 million in R&D planning to get 100,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2005, Toyota (1997) predicting 1/3 of vehicles would be hybrids, Ford jumping into the Daimler-Benz fuel cell project with $420 million, GM showing 3 hybrid variations on the EV-1 at the Detroit Auto Show. GM promising production ready hybrids by 2001, fuel-cell versions by 2004. Ford P2000, hybrid aluminum sedan getting 60-70 mpg, in the works.Chrysler showing hybrid molded-composite cars capable of 70 mpg. VW starting volume production on a 78 mpg hybrid electric with future 118 mpg and 235 mpg models in the works. Progress was being made for some reason...maybe favorable government policies under Clinton/Gore? And just as quickly most of the above-mentioned went down the tubes post-2000.

eriedasch wrote:And when will the Chevy Volt be available to consumers?

Hopefully soon. It's been a few months, but I remember reading in the business news over the summer that GM had pre-orders in excess of 200,000 for the Volt. Wise will be the first gas stations/convenience stores that installs recharging stations.

Part of the continued success. Regular everyday folks are going to take home $4000 in profit sharing that will immediately impact our economy. Love the tea bagger comments though. These people don't raise an eye brow when an insurance exec gets $400 million for denying people health care but a working man gets a share of the profits all of a sudden they're lazy and undeserving.

Part of the continued success. Regular everyday folks are going to take home $4000 in profit sharing that will immediately impact our economy. Love the tea bagger comments though. These people don't raise an eye brow when an insurance exec gets $400 million for denying people health care but a working man gets a share of the profits all of a sudden they're lazy and undeserving.

If we're going to throw money at failed businesses to stimulate the economy (never to see that money again) why not just give EVERYONE $4000. I mean, if we all had an extra $4000 we'd spend it right? And wham-o, economy problem solved.

Crockett wrote:If we're going to throw money at failed businesses to stimulate the economy (never to see that money again) why not just give EVERYONE $4000. I mean, if we all had an extra $4000 we'd spend it right? And wham-o, economy problem solved.

That's an excellent point, Cricket. The taxes on the top income bracket used to be 91%. People pretty much universally register shock at such a thought, but keep in mind that it isn't 91% of your TOTAL income, but just 91% of your income over a certain level. Adjusted for inflation, let's say $20 million?

The point of a 91% income tax isn't to punish hard working folks, as Rush Limbaugh might suggest, because if you think about it there really aren't any hard working folks making $20 million/year. Think of it as more of a salary cap. There's really no point in making more than $20 million/year because the government will just take it all anyway... you might as well spread the wealth a bit. Give your employees a raise. Let the shareholders earn a bit more. You know how much your 401k would grow if CEO's and traders weren't robbing the piggy bank?

Last year a hedge fund manager registered a record (and staggering) $6 billion in profits... for himself. Even if he were paying 91% taxes on all of his income over $20 million that would still be one hell of a paycheck. How would you like a share of that in your 401k?

Punishing success? More like punishing EXCESS.

Economies trickle up, not down. Every economist that doesn't currently work for the Heritage Foundation seems to understand this.

"Unlike the A.I.G. rescue, however, the government’s wind-down of its G.M. bailout is expected to lose money. The Treasury Department’s break-even pricepoint is generally estimated at about $53 a share, following the car maker’s I.P.O."

Current price? $27.34

Lock in the loss.

Notice how the NYT doesn't do the math for you. You don't want to know.